From: tgpedersen
Message: 62505
Date: 2009-01-16
>Sorry, Moksha.
> > =======
> > I believe *puH is a better reconstruction,
> > *puH-a > Erzia puv-a-ms
> > but
> > Moksha is upH-a > uf-a-ms.
> >
> > A.
> > =======
>
> Mordvin *-pu- > Erzya -up-, or something more general?
> That's not a very natural type of metathesis.
>
> ==========
>
> We're talking about Moksha not Erzia.
> There are a certain number of possible metatheses.Metathesis?
> *puH-a > *upHa > *ufa is one
> PIE *kwâs "cough" > II *kas > aks-örd- is another
> Psi "fire" and ops^-tad "to burn" is one more from UEW *pis'-What metathesis?
> The word kenks^ is first attested in 1692 as kensk.And difficult to detect to boot.
> Metathesis is not a predictable phenomenon.
>And that is relevant how?
> > Are you really a Dane or a word-processor gone wild ?
> > A.
>
> Strangely enough, when I'm about to win an argument with a Swede,
> they never fail to change subject to that of the gutturalness of
> Danish and Scanian, as if the very euphoniousness of their language
> ensured the truth of what they stated in it. You're not *that*
> stupid, are you?
> Torsten
>
> ========
> I remember Rollon is one of my ancestors at the 34th Cneow
> So I guess I will remain neutral about that issue.
> Nevertheless, the reverse argument that you must be right because
> your language sounds ugly is wrong as well.
>
> A.
>